<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON – A House committee has asked the Homeland Security Department to provide documents about an agency policy that required political appointees to review many Freedom of Information Act requests, according to a letter obtained Sunday by The Associated Press.

The letter to Homeland Security was sent late Friday by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It represents an early move by House Republicans who have vowed to launch numerous probes of President Barack Obama's administration, ranging from its implementation of the new health care law to rules curbing air pollution to spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Associated Press reported in July that for at least a year, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Homeland Security had sidetracked hundreds of requests for federal records to top political advisers to the department's secretary, Janet Napolitano. The political appointees wanted information about those requesting the materials, and in some cases the release of documents considered politically sensitive was delayed, according to numerous e-mails that were obtained by the AP.</span>

The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to ensure the quick public release of requested government documents without political consideration. Obama has said his administration would emphasize openness in providing requested federal records. ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Last summer, officials said fewer than 500 requests were vetted by political officials. The department received about 103,000 requests for information in a recent 12-month period.</span>

The agency's directive said political appointees wanted to see FOIA requests for "awareness purposes," regardless of who had filed them. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The AP reported that the agency's career employees were told to provide political appointees with information about who requested documents, where they lived, whether they were reporters and where they worked.</span>

According to the directive, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>political aides were to review requests related to Obama policy priorities, or anything related to controversial or sensitive subjects. Requests from journalists, lawmakers and activist groups were to also to be examined.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Under a new policy last summer, documents are given to agency political advisers three days before they are released</span>, but they can be distributed without those officials' approval. </div></div>

Just like in the old days. If you asked the FBI if there was file on you and there wasnt. That changed right after you hung up the phone.

Soflasnapper

01-17-2011, 12:10 PM

This doesn't relate to either transparency or compliance with FOIA requests, both of which policies in this administration remain light years ahead of those of its predecessor.

Famously, the Bush administration approach to FOIA requests was to instruct all executive branch departments to deny them outright, and totally refuse cooperation. Obama flipped this presumption and order to routinely deny any requests to its 180 degree opposite, instructing all executive branch departments to routinely always respond.

There is no showing here in this article that they did anything but exactly that at the end of the day. If some FOIA request document production responses were indeed delayed release for political reasons, apparently they all were still eventually released (or at least nothing here says any were not eventually released).

Using the numbers here, if 500 requests out of 103,000 were DELAYED (by review of DHS political appointees or other politicos in the administration), that is less than 1/2 of 1% (0.5%). Apparently then, for more than 99.5% of all FOIA requests, no such diversion, political review, or delay from standard production timetables was involved.

So, let's review! We went from an executive order of a policy of 100% denial of cooperation with FOIA requests, to an executive policy of 100% cooperation, which has almost entirely been met (minus the DELAY (not refusal or denial) of less than 1/2 of 1% of requests).

In the real world, this record would be called 'virtually perfect' in terms of honoring that pledge and policy, but in bizarro world, where everything is backwards, this is, I guess, evidence of complete coverup and a entire lack of transparency.

Now, apart from the question of whether these small number of cases truly mean a hypocritical failure to live up to the policy (or rather actually show the opposite, as I argue above), is there a problem with the political review policy? Maybe, or maybe not.

If this review is limited to the newer policy this piece describes as being put in place last summer, that already granted FOIA-requested doc releases get over to the political appointees 3 days prior to release, with no power of the appointee to stop the release (as the article indicates to be the case), and then the docs are released 3 days later as planned, I don't see that there is now any delay, or any political consideration involved in whether to delay (or respond at all). That is, whatever problems there may have been in the first review/delay policy, they seem to have already been fixed.

A further transparency test awaits in the Obama administration response to Issa's letter. If the administration refuses the chairman's request asserting executive privilege reasons, as the Bush administration routinely did in such cases, then I'll agree on the failure to be transparent charge.

Stretch

01-18-2011, 02:15 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This doesn't relate to either transparency or compliance with FOIA requests, both of which policies in this administration remain light years ahead of those of its predecessor.

Famously, the Bush administration approach to FOIA requests was to instruct all executive branch departments to deny them outright, and totally refuse cooperation. Obama flipped this presumption and order to routinely deny any requests to its 180 degree opposite, instructing all executive branch departments to routinely always respond.

There is no showing here in this article that they did anything but exactly that at the end of the day. If some FOIA request document production responses were indeed delayed release for political reasons, apparently they all were still eventually released (or at least nothing here says any were not eventually released).

Using the numbers here, if 500 requests out of 103,000 were DELAYED (by review of DHS political appointees or other politicos in the administration), that is less than 1/2 of 1% (0.5%). Apparently then, for more than 99.5% of all FOIA requests, no such diversion, political review, or delay from standard production timetables was involved.

So, let's review! We went from an executive order of a policy of 100% denial of cooperation with FOIA requests, to an executive policy of 100% cooperation, which has almost entirely been met (minus the DELAY (not refusal or denial) of less than 1/2 of 1% of requests).

In the real world, this record would be called 'virtually perfect' in terms of honoring that pledge and policy, but in bizarro world, where everything is backwards, this is, I guess, evidence of complete coverup and a entire lack of transparency.

Now, apart from the question of whether these small number of cases truly mean a hypocritical failure to live up to the policy (or rather actually show the opposite, as I argue above), is there a problem with the political review policy? Maybe, or maybe not.

If this review is limited to the newer policy this piece describes as being put in place last summer, that already granted FOIA-requested doc releases get over to the political appointees 3 days prior to release, with no power of the appointee to stop the release (as the article indicates to be the case), and then the docs are released 3 days later as planned, I don't see that there is now any delay, or any political consideration involved in whether to delay (or respond at all). That is, whatever problems there may have been in the first review/delay policy, they seem to have already been fixed.

A further transparency test awaits in the Obama administration response to Issa's letter. If the administration refuses the chairman's request asserting executive privilege reasons, as the Bush administration routinely did in such cases, then I'll agree on the failure to be transparent charge.

</div></div>

Nice post snap. I hope you stick around as sanity is in short supply. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St.

LWW

01-18-2011, 03:02 AM

I wish for once ... just ONCE ... a leftist would answer a question about the regime with something other than <span style='font-size: 11pt'>B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span>

LWW

Sev

01-18-2011, 07:07 AM

You got a better chance of winning the lottery.

Soflasnapper

01-18-2011, 10:06 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wish for once ... just ONCE ... a leftist would answer a question about the regime with something other than <span style='font-size: 11pt'>B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span>

LWW </div></div>

You must have quit reading after the second paragraph.

I'll point out that your question was fully answered in all respects, at length.

Given more than 99.5% perfect transparency in the FOIA responses, which after some minor delay reached fully 100% perfection, makes your complaint ridiculous.

I'm sure you realize that now, LOL!

LWW

01-19-2011, 02:19 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wish for once ... just ONCE ... a leftist would answer a question about the regime with something other than <span style='font-size: 11pt'>B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span>

LWW </div></div>

You must have quit reading after the second paragraph.

I'll point out that your question was fully <s>answered</s> avoided in all respects, at length.
</div></div>